Reasons to Vote "NO"

[Ecky]

What I have learned from this is that a noisy minority can be VERY noisy. Even on talkback radio shows today most callers were against the decision. I can only assume YES voters or supporters don't listen to the radio or can't be bothered even entering the debate.

Yes, a good example of how polls on internet sites are basically meaningless, I'll admit that!
But I think if the whole state voted, the no vote would be higher, as the main argument from non-sporting people is whether the government should be spending so much money on stadiums at all. The SACA members are a biased sample of the public, as we have a lot to gain directly from this (basically a $500million handout) so with that and the saturation coverage in the media it meant it probably wasn't that surprising that the yes vote was so high in hindsight.

[Hondo]

Yes, but I don't think any one single capital investment of that size would be voted by a majority of the state as everyone has their own view of where money should be spent.

[Ecky]

Credit too to the 8000 SACA members who voted yes when a lot of us pro-YES vote people were making rough and in hindsight unfair negative generalisations about SACA members.

I think it also shows how far the demographics of SACA membership have changed over the last 10 years with the huge increase in member numbers.
The stereotypical retired conservative old blokes with their striped shirts and cream trousers with the wireless tuned to the ABC who line up at 8am and go home at tea that are parodied by Kerry O'Keefe have been swamped by the new breed of younger members who don't care so much for the cricket but who are just there to drink out the back and mingle with the b-grade celebrity wannabes at the "in" place to be.
These are the ones the SACA targeted with their campaign and it obviously worked.

[The Sleeping Giant]

The stereotypical retired conservative old blokes with their striped shirts and cream trousers with the wireless tuned to the ABC who line up at 8am and go home at tea

I love those guys. They are so miserable it's actually funny.

[fish]

I think it also shows how far the demographics of SACA membership have changed over the last 10 years with the huge increase in member numbers.
The stereotypical retired conservative old blokes with their striped shirts and cream trousers with the wireless tuned to the ABC who line up at 8am and go home at tea that are parodied by Kerry O'Keefe have been swamped by the new breed of younger members who don't care so much for the cricket but who are just there to drink out the back and mingle with the b-grade celebrity wannabes at the "in" place to be.
These are the ones the SACA targeted with their campaign and it obviously worked.

That is exactly what my SACA-member work colleague said to me this morning.

[fish]

Just crunched some numbers and if just 674 of those who voted "yes" had voted "no" then the "yes" vote would not have got the 75% needed.

Amazing that a 535 million dollar state-funded project was effectively decided by so few members of the public.

[AFLflyer]

Just crunched some numbers and if just 674 of those who voted "yes" had voted "no" then the "yes" vote would not have got the 75% needed.

Amazing that a 535 million dollar state-funded project was effectively decided by so few members of the public.

A part from voting at the state ellections, when does anyone get to vote on a state based project??

[MightyEagles]

If ya not down with the yes vote and the new Adelaide Oval, I've got 2 words for ya.

[AFLflyer]

If ya not down with the yes vote and the new Adelaide Oval, I've got 2 words for ya.

and they are?

[White Line Fever]

Just crunched some numbers and if just 674 of those who voted "yes" had voted "no" then the "yes" vote would not have got the 75% needed.

Amazing that a 535 million dollar state-funded project was effectively decided by so few members of the public.

I just crunched some numbers too and it looks like it's a YES.

[The Sleeping Giant]

Just crunched some numbers and if just 674 of those who voted "yes" had voted "no" then the "yes" vote would not have got the 75% needed.

Amazing that a 535 million dollar state-funded project was effectively decided by so few members of the public.

And some don't even live in the state. Lol.

[heater31]

What are the SACA hiding from the public if they don't want to release the results?

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/saca-keeps-details-of-adelaide-oval-yes-vote-a-secret/story-e6frea6u-1226049437262

How can leaked media reports say 60% just after proxy voting closed yet a magical extra 20% voted yes on Monday night?

of the 2300 who went to the meeting approx 1000 had voted via proxies....

perhaps Osama Bin Laden is hiding at Adelaide Oval

[smac]

Perhaps the leak was made up by a journo?

Computershare conducted the ballot, to suggest any impropriety on their part is certainly clutching at straws.

[heater31]

Perhaps the leak was made up by a journo?

Computershare conducted the ballot, to suggest any impropriety on their part is certainly clutching at straws.

Yes so why won't they or SACA release the results? Was it a majority of non voters that got they yes camp over the line?

[smac]

If you didn't vote, it wasn't counted. All material clearly stated unallocated and unassigned proxy votes went to the Chair and would be a vote for the motion.

[heater31]

If you didn't vote, it wasn't counted. All material clearly stated unallocated and unassigned proxy votes went to the Chair and would be a vote for the motion.

I know that. Why aren't we allowed to see a breakdown of that then? Those that voted for/against and those that didn't even bother to decide the future direction of SACA.

[smac]

Why do you need to know? Everyone who voted, by proxy or in person, had their say.

Time to move on.

[Bulls forever]

If you didn't vote, it wasn't counted. All material clearly stated unallocated and unassigned proxy votes went to the Chair and would be a vote for the motion.

I know that. Why aren't we allowed to see a breakdown of that then? Those that voted for/against and those that didn't even bother to decide the future direction of SACA.

H31, please, accept the vote and move on, we have had a month of conspiracy theories when this thread started. AND as i said in a previous post, the SACA had an independent NSW company conduct a survey about a month before the vote. They had a fair idea of where this vote was heading and what they needed to do to convice the members that this was the best thing for the state. This 60% per cent crap on the weekend was one of two things.
- Some media person trying to invent things.
- A leaked scare campaign from SACA trying to swing more voters.

We must remember the Chair of the Board is an ex very successful politician and a very very rich man to boot. He didn't get there by luck.

AND I hate gloating, but NostraBFdamus predicted this in a much earlier thread, I just couldn't be bothered trying to find it to put it up.

GO YOU GOOD THING.

[heater31]

Why do you need to know? Everyone who voted, by proxy or in person, had their say.

Time to move on.

Having said that how many didn't have their say and automatically were assigned a yes vote? To me that is poor form and is an insult to those that cared to vote. If they won't release that information looks to me that they relied heavily on the non voters to get them across the line.

[Bulls forever]

Why do you need to know? Everyone who voted, by proxy or in person, had their say.

Time to move on.

Having said that how many didn't have their say and automatically were assigned a yes vote? To me that is poor form and is an insult to those that cared to vote. If they won't release that information looks to me that they relied heavily on the non voters to get them across the line.

You have read that wrong H31, anyone that didn't vote was not counted, hence the % of SACA members that voted.